• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Sanctifying the age of the earth/universe

USincognito

a post by Alan Smithee
Site Supporter
Dec 25, 2003
42,070
16,820
Dallas
✟918,891.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
There have even been published secular papers that claim radioactive decay rates have been directly observed to fluctuate.

Yes, but none of those papers has withstood scrutiny over time.
Is decay constant? - ScienceDirect

The hypothesis of neutrino-induced decay is highly speculative and has been contradicted by experiment for α, β-, β+ and EC decaying nuclidesalike. There is no indication that neutrinos from the Sun influence beta decay, hence all speculative solar science deduced from variations in decay rates should be regarded as unsubstantiated. The exponential-decay law remains the solid foundation of the common measurement of radioactivity and requires no amendment for its application.​
 
Upvote 0

USincognito

a post by Alan Smithee
Site Supporter
Dec 25, 2003
42,070
16,820
Dallas
✟918,891.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
...violated evolution religion)

Just going to give you a heads up that as long as you continue posting garbage like this, don't confuse our responding to your myriad errors with taking you seriously. That sort of histrionic hyperbole makes you seem like a foot stomping five-year-old.
 
Upvote 0

tas8831

Well-Known Member
May 5, 2017
5,611
3,999
56
Northeast
✟101,040.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
But never dinosaurs. In fact, if the Earth is only 6,000 years old, we should be able to find DNA in just about anything we find.
Don't you just love how creationists, generally being quite ignorant of science (and quite often the very scientific things they pretend to be 'owning' us on), so often stab themselves in the back by not thinking their "arguments" through? I do.
 
Upvote 0

46AND2

Forty six and two are just ahead of me...
Sep 5, 2012
5,807
2,210
Vancouver, WA
✟109,603.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others

Decomposition rates and radioactive decay rates are not even remotely related. Decomposition rates are demonstrated to fluctuate wildly, while radioactive decay rates are demonstrated to be remarkably consistent. Which is why, when we determine the age of a fossil, we don't measure the decomposition of the fossil, we measure the accumulation of radioactive decay byproduct in the rock in proximity to it.

Error margins in radioactive dating is due to limitations of the measurement techniques, not any inherent uncertainty in the rate of decay itself.
 
Upvote 0

carlv_52

Well-Known Member
Jun 18, 2019
487
458
58
Washington
✟32,804.00
Country
United States
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
In Relationship
Why should we believe that the same institutions that still can't figure out where the Earth's oceans came from (among countless other features and phenomena), have also irrefutably demonstrated that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old.

1. Nothing is "irrefutable", but that being said, the radiometric dating technique shows consistent ages across a variety of methods.

2. There's almost no rational universe that would have a YOUNG earth that has the FEATURES we see on earth.

Only recently has the geologic community rejected uniformitarianism as an unjustified limitation on scientific inquiry into Earth's history

Do you mean 'recently' in a geologic sense? Because uniformitarianism was first proposed over 300 years ago.

, as it constrains past geologic rates and conditions to those of the present.

Are you trying to tell us that you don't know much geology? Yes uniformitarianism does hold sway most of the time, but there ARE known examples of catastrophes (like the Scablands in Washington State, or various volcanic eruptions, etc.)

We know a LOT about the structures we see in rocks because we see them forming in soft sediments in real time today. We see how ripple marks are made in ocean edges and we see ripple marks in the rock records. Why assume there is some difference in how the rock-based ones got there? We know how long it takes for clay-sized particles to settle in calm water, why assume that shales are anything but representatives of massive stretches of long times of calm depositional environments?


We know of vanishingly few things that can alter the rate of radioactive decay. The last time I heard anything that even marginally looked like it might be a change in radioactive decay rate was an article (that wasn't even in peer review as I recall) from about a decade ago about neutrino-flux alteration of decay rate of a rare Si isotope but it was due to solar neutrino flux which was seasonal so it evened out in the course of a year if I recall. I know of no other means of altering the rate of radioactive decay on earth. I could be wrong, but without any evidence for such a change, why hypothesize it? Unless one has some INVESTED REASON for a young earth?

And if the rate was DRAMATICALLY different it would have fried all the life on the surface of the earth in order to get the amount of decay we see recorded in the rocks today.

(substantive responses only please. If all you have is emotional hand-waving or a snide flippant comment then please just move along)

Here's the biggest question for YOU: If all the data lines up (both from what we see in structures on the earth that indicate massive time passage, eg the Green River Varves etc.) and shows an OLD EARTH (much older than Young Earth) and radiometric dating ALSO shows an old earth with spans of time that make sense. AND we have no reason to assume an altered rate of decay of radioactive materials, why propose them?

The ONLY reason is to justify a YOUNG EARTH, and the ONLY reason the Earth has to be young is to justify a small subset of Christian theologians/believers.

That is not a sufficiently compelling reason to toss all we know about physics, chemistry and radioactive decay.
 
Upvote 0

SLP

Senior Member
May 29, 2002
2,369
660
✟21,532.00
Faith
Atheist
And then he disappeared..

And then he came back months later starting a new thread on 'branching trees'....
 
Upvote 0

SkyWriting

The Librarian
Site Supporter
Jan 10, 2010
37,281
8,501
Milwaukee
✟411,038.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others


Scripture says the world is quite old. "Everlasting" in one place.
Adam was old, Eve was old, the garden was old, the fruit trees were at least as old as dirt. Dirt is pretty old. Everything about creation week describes an old, established earth. Even man was "re-made" into the image of God.
 
Upvote 0

tas8831

Well-Known Member
May 5, 2017
5,611
3,999
56
Northeast
✟101,040.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
See? Predictable. And never changing...

If history is a guide, the creationist will eventually start being grotesquely condescending to hide his ignorance when he has run out of phony witticisms and the repeated unsupported or erroneous assertions no longer slow down the critics, then he will split. Only to come back a few weeks or months later, having concocted yet another pre-fabricated anti-evolution series of lies and nonsense to prop up his failing 'faith.'

It is very cyclical.​
 
Upvote 0